I recently wrote an item about receiving an annoying email from a guy named Tim Cavanaugh of Real Clear Investigations that suggested, which I already knew, that my name had come up in one of the congressional investigations of Donald Trump and the “Russiagate” farce.
The most annoying part of the whole thing was that I was watching Monday Night Football at the time and the whole thing was a distraction. Anyway — what was I saying, I lost my train of thought and simultaneously got distracted. Anyway, you can see my exchanges with Cavanaugh here.
So Cavanaugh wrote subsequently a story that not only got things terrible wrong, IMHO, but he also omitted my comments. We had a further exchange which I’m publishing below.
And mostly what I want to say is addressed to congressional investigators as well as special counsel Robert Mueller. Please call me to testify so I can rebut the lies told about me to one committee by Thorzito Halvorssen and, most of all, to make a mockery of your very misguided, shitshow investigations.
(Actually, the Mueller investigation seems potentially serious, but that remains to be seen. Personally I find the fawning media coverage of this creepy guy embarrassing and I also wonder if he can possibly conduct a “fair” investigation given the circus around this whole affair. And I also think that having been appointed to lead the investigation, he is virtually compelled to “find” something, otherwise he looks stupid. That said, there is clearly a ton of dirt on Trump and his closest associates and I look forward to learning more about it and writing about it too.)
EXCHANGE, WHICH WAS LIGHTLY EDITED FOR CLARITY:
KS to TC:
I had the misfortune of seeing your story, was on twitter. happy to talk by email, not on phone. i want a record of what we discuss.
TC to KS:
I appreciate your responding earlier. I realized I had phrased as established fact a few claims that came only from Browder and Halvorssen. I fixed those.
The news value of Glenn Simpson’s having once written a moral primer with a figure as sanctimonious as Larry Sabato is obvious. The story is accurate and fair.
I’m interested in finding out more about who’s who in the international-flack food chain. I saw your partner on the Colombia story Alanna Goodman did a hit piece on Glenn Simpson that was solid though overcooked.
I get the impression Fusion GPS is a fairly solid opposition shop and there are a lot of political assumptions being made about it that are based mainly on whether or not the assumer wants the Trump/Russia story to be true.
If you are still in contact with Glenn, I’m still hoping to make contact with him. I went far beyond due diligence in trying to get a comment for him from this story, and I’d be be happy to speak with him about matters where he is not the main focus (as was the unavoidable case with this story).
Thanks again for your help.
KS to TC:
Wow, I have to admit I’m impressed with your email. I think your story is still deeply flawed and I think you should be examining Thor and Browder both, but you’ll have to decide for yourself.
There’s nothing I deeply disagree with here. I thought her story was definitely over cooked, it was a Daily Mail piece but she’s a very good reporter. I think the general problem with the reporting is something you pointed to, namely that people draw whatever conclusion they want to draw from all this. I also would have to agree that Glenn has a lot of journalist friends, including me, and that has made it complicated to report on him fairly and honestly and maybe people smarter than me have dirt on Glenn that I don’t have and have covered it up.
But I think a big reason that nothing seriously bad HAS come out about Glenn and his shop is something else you pointed to, they’re just a standard opposition research group. And they do pretty standard, pretty good work so as far as I know so there’s no scandal.
I do really like Glenn and I am in touch with him, as you know, because I CCed him on the earlier emails. So you have his email… In any case I’m dictating this while I bicycle and I’m not sure I covered all your points but to reemphasize, I think your story is way off base. Maybe it’s factually accurate but you’ve omitted information that some people would find exculpatory.
Like just about every other journalist covering the story you’re building a case and not looking at both sides equally. It’s an occupational hazard which I understand and that’s why I think it’s always best to be open about one’s biases. Anyway, you can use any of this or none of it, if you do use it please correct the typos. If I use it I definitely will. And accurate is very definitely not always fair. All the best.
KS, once again, to TC:
Well, I was thinking of posting our exchange but I’ll just let you know I’m not going to. Obviously if you do a follow up and include anything from me I will likely reply.
I guess I’m generally a dick but I just decided that given the sincerity of your last email that I’ll just not be a dick about this and wait and see if you write anything. I still really disagree with you but whatever.
And it’s really true, it doesn’t matter a whole lot to me whether you write anything with my name in it or not, I’m pretty good or bad, depending on your perspective, when it comes to self-promotion.
But I do think that by omitting my comments to you in your piece about Glenn you prove my point. You should have allowed me to rebut the charges made about me even if you didn’t include the charges in your story. [Editor’s note: That may seem odd, but trust me, I knew what I meant to say.] I’m glad you didn’t actually because it’s tiresome to have to respond to lies [from Thorzito] but I also told you things about Glenn that I think show another side to the story. Anyway, I have to run. That’s it.